2019 (2) TMI 1816

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in this appeal, few facts need mention infra. 3. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the original appellant, who was the writ petitioner and the review petitioner whereas the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition and the review application. 4. The original appellant was the owner of certain lands. These lands were subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The ceiling proceedings eventually resulted in declaring some lands in excess of ceiling limits as surplus. The State claims to have taken possession of the surplus land way back in the year 1982. The Ceiling Act was repealed for the State o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 14.03.2008 also along with the review order dated 16.12.2008, but we do not find it to be so. 11. In our opinion, the original appellant not having challenged the legality of the main order dated 14.03.2008 in a separate SLP or in this appeal, this Court is not called upon to examine the legality and correctness of the main order dated 14.03.2008 in the present appeal. 12. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, however, argued that this Court should invoke the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and permit the appellants to challenge the main order. We find no merit in this submission for three reasons. 13. First, the original appellant did not assign any reason as to what prevented her in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gally sustainable or not. 19. On perusal of the main order dated 14.03.2008, we find that the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner (original appellant herein) failed to prove her possession over the land in question on the date of repeal. It was held that the State had taken possession of the land in the year 1982 as per the panchnama prepared by the State. 20. In review, the High Court held that while recording the aforementioned finding in the main order, no apparent error, whether on facts or law within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, was committed attracting the rigor of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code. 21 It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made sub....